People v. McAlister

• Decision Date: 08 February 1994
• Docket Number: Docket No. 133519
• Citation: People v. McAlister, 513 N.W.2d 431, 203 Mich.App. 495 (Mich. App. 1994)
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Troy McALISTER, a/k/a William Troy McAllister, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 431

513 N.W.2d 431

203 Mich.App. 495

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.William Troy McALISTER, a/k/a William Troy McAllisterDefendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 133519.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Feb. 10, 1993, at Lansing.

Decided Feb. 8, 1994, at 9:00 a.m.

Released for Publication April 1, 1994.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol.Gen., Ward Clarkson, Pros.Atty., and J. Ronald Kaplansky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.

State Appellate Defender by P.E. Bennett, for defendant on appeal.

Before MacKENZIE, P.J., and HOOD and WHITE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his convictions by a jury of felony murder, M.C.L. § 750.316;M.S.A. § 28.548(one count), kidnapping, M.C.L. § 750.349;M.S.A. § 28.581(four counts), and assault with intent to commit murder, M.C.L. § 750.83;M.S.A. § 28.278(three counts), and his sentences of 65 to 120 years for the assault convictions, which he received in addition to mandatory life for the murder conviction, and life imprisonment for the kidnapping convictions.We affirm defendant's convictions, but remand for resentencing for the assault convictions.

On the morning of September 26, 1989, defendant gained entry into the First Federal of Michigan bank in Perry, before the bank opened, by pulling a gun on two arriving employees, Betty Green and Marilyn Parks, and announcing a holdup.Two other employees, Richard Church and Susanne McIntosh, were also held at gunpoint as they arrived for work.Obeying defendant's instructions, Parks turned off the alarms, opened the vault, and filled a paper bag with approximately $50,000.During this time, defendant wore a ski mask and gloves.

Defendant then removed the mask and gloves, and ordered Church to drive him and the other three employees to Flint using Green's car.He then changed his mind and ordered Church to return to the bank, where defendant's own car was parked.He directed McIntosh to drive Green's car and Church to drive defendant's car behind Green's, threatening to kill Church's co-workers if he did not follow closely.Telling the employees that they would be driving to Chicago, defendant instead directed the two cars toward Lansing, and then, eventually, into the surrounding countryside.They stopped in a swampy area, and defendant ordered the four to lie down in the road behind his car.Before they had time to comply, defendant changed his mind, saying that it was not going to work, and ordered the four to get into his car.With Church driving, defendant directed the car to a gravel pit a few miles away.Seeing another car there, defendant grew alarmed and ordered Church to go back to the road.After traveling some additional distance on back roads, defendant directed Church to stop the car, and ordered the four to lie down in the middle of the road behind the car.He instructed them to remain there for fifteen or twenty minutes after he was gone.Instead of departing, however, defendant put the car in reverse and backed up.The tailpipe struck Green in the head.Parks was crushed.Though the car struck McIntosh and Church as well, they were able to roll out of the way and run.Defendant, seeing that Church and McIntosh were escaping, got out of his car and fired two shots at McIntosh.McIntosh screamed and fell, hoping to make defendant think she had been hit.Defendant then fired an additional shot in Church's direction.Defendant got back into the car and, apparently in an attempt to free his wheels, ran back and forth several times over Green and Parks before departing.Church made his way to a nearby house and called the police.Michigan State Police troopers found Green and McIntosh shortly thereafter.Parks was pronounced dead at the scene.

Defendant was overtaken and arrested at a roadblock in Kalamazoo County.He surrendered peaceably.Both before and after being read his Miranda ¹ rights, defendant told the arresting officer to do him a favor: to give him all the time he could get because he deserved it.

Later, while being questioned by Federal Bureau of Investigation and state police agents, defendant gave an extensive statement in which he said the reason he ran over the four bank employees was that he did not want to get caught.The statement was ordered suppressed because it was given after defendant had invoked his right to counsel.That decision is not at issue in this case.

Defendant's trial defense was insanity.Defendant's expert psychiatric witness, Dr. Ronald Bradley, testified that defendant suffered from a major depressive disorder resulting from having been raised in a dysfunctional family and, in part, from a genetic disorder.Dr. Bradley testified that defendant originally bought the gun used in the holdup intending to kill himself, and devised the bank robbery only after finding himself unable to commit suicide.In Dr. Bradley's opinion, defendant hoped that, by robbing the bank, he would be caught and punished for being a failure in life.The doctor testified that defendant's actions in planning and conducting the robbery, and his subsequent actions concerning the four employees, were the result of hearing voices telling him to do those things and experiencing impulses he could not resist.According to Dr. Bradley, at the moment he backed over the hostages, defendant believed that he was rolling over his own parents and siblings.

One of the sources on which Dr. Bradley based his opinion was a scrapbook of news articles compiled by defendant, which allegedly demonstrated defendant's history of depression.The trial court denied defendant's request to admit the scrapbook into evidence, ruling that a sufficient foundation was lacking.

On cross-examination, Dr. Bradley testified that he reviewed a police report, after which the prosecutor questioned him as follows:

Q.And in that material didn't he also say that the reason he did that [backed over the hostages] is because he didn't want to get caught?

A.What, your question is not clear.

Q.The reason he backed over those people is because he didn't want to get caught?

A.If you look at different times in his testimony he--

Q.But back to my original question, Doctor, isn't it true that he told the police that the reason he backed over those people is because he didn't want to get caught?

Defendant objected and moved for a mistrial.The trial court denied the motion after determining that Dr. Bradley, who did not have access to a police report, had misidentified a forensic report as a police report.The judge stated that the prosecutor was free to inquire into the basis of an expert's opinion when that basis was referred to in testimony.The trial court also cited for support Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 110 S.Ct. 1176, 108 L.Ed.2d 293(1990), which held that a prosecutor may impeach a defendant's false or inconsistent testimony with a statement taken in violation of the defendant's right to counsel.In lieu of granting a mistrial, the trial court gave the following cautionary instruction to the jury:

Members of the jury, I just want to give you a cautionary instruction as to the last question by the prosecutor to the witness, Dr. Bradley, something to the effect that the reason for--or the reason given by the defendant to the police for backing over the victims.And I want to instruct you as to that question, as it was phrased by the prosecutor, that's stricken from the record, you're to disregard--and there hasn't been any answer because there was an objection at that point.You'll recall my earlier instructions that questions by either counsel are not evidence but, rather, it's the answer given in response to those questions by the witness.Indeed, there's been no answer and I now instruct you to disregard the question and strike it from your minds, meaning from your consideration when you get into deliberations and you consider what has been allowed or legally admissible evidence, which is all that you can consider for your deliberations as to the issues in this case.

In further support of the insanity defense, several members of defendant's family testified extensively about defendant's rearing by an alcoholic mother who later developed early onset Alzheimer's disease, a disinterested father, and two abusive stepfathers.

Psychologist Carol Holden of the Center for Forensic Psychiatry testified on rebuttal that during her interview with defendanthe had stated: when he bought the gun he was not thinking of suicide; he had planned the bank robbery the day before as a means of paying his college tuition; he had not been hearing voices during or after the robbery; he did not know what he was thinking when he ran over the hostages; and despite an extremely oppressive home life, he had formed close bonds with his brothers and sisters and saw them as a source of tremendous support.Dr. Holden believed that although defendant exhibited some symptoms of depression in the days before the robbery, other signs of health, as well as his ability to plan the robbery beforehand, tended to negate Dr. Bradley's diagnoses of major depressive disorder and impulse disorder.Dr. Holden expressed the opinion that defendant suffered a personality or character disorder, but was not mentally ill, and throughout the robbery and kidnapping took actions indicating he knew what he was doing was wrong.

The trial court instructed the jury regarding the possible verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity and guilty but mentally ill.The jury found defendant guilty of felony murder, kidnapping, and assault with intent to commit murder.After delivering the verdict and being discharged, several of the jurors appeared distraught.The foreperson wrote a note on behalf of all the jurors asking the trial court to consider giving defendant psychiatric or psychological assistance as part of his sentence.The trial court sentenced defendant to mandatory life for the murder...